672 GAME LAWS. 



held that he is not liable for damage done by rabbits or birds 

 unless he has turned out an unreasonable and excessive num- 

 ber.^^ Rabbits were held not to be "game" within the mean- 

 ing of Stat. 27 Geo. 3, c. 35, or 27 & 28 Vict. c. 67, inflicting 

 a penalty on trespassing "in pursuit of game." ^^ Where an 

 act imposed a penalty on one carrying a gun without a license, 

 but excepted an occupier doing so for the purpose only of 

 scaring birds or of killing vermin, it was held that rabbits 

 were not "vermin" within the meaning of the statute.®^ The 

 reservation in a lease of the right of shooting and sporting 

 over the land demised is not limited to game strictly so called 

 but reserves to the lessor the exclusive right to follow and 

 shoot such animals as are in common parlance understood to 

 be the subject of sport. *^ 



An action does not lie against a man for making coney 

 burrows in his own lands "for so soon as the conies come 

 on his neighbor's land he may kill them, for they are fercz 

 natures and he who makes the coney burrows has no prop- 

 erty in them, and he shall not be punished for the damage 

 which the conies do in which he has no property, and which 

 the other may lawfully kill." ^^ 



Firing at wild fowl near a decoy so as to make birds take 

 flight is an unlawful disturbance for which an action on the 

 case lies.®* And one whose game is enticed away by a 

 neighbor is liable to an action for exploding combustibles so 

 as to be a nuisance to the latter, in order to frighten away 

 the game from his land and prevent his killing them and en- 

 ticing other game.®^ 



™ Paget V. Birkbeck, 3 F. & F. 683. And see Stanser v. Bacon, 106 

 L. T. 439. 



See 13 Ir. L. T. 315, on the subject of damages caused by rabbits. 

 '" Cleary v. De Vesci, [1895] 2 I. R. 704. 

 " Lord Advocate v. Young, 25 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 778. 

 ^ Jeffryes v. Evans, 19 C. B. N. S. 246. *= Boulston's Case, 5 Co. 104 b. 

 " Carrington v. Taylor, 11 East 571; Keeble v. Hickeringill, Ibid. 574 n, 

 cited also in § 41, supra. 

 "° Ibottson V. Peat, 3 H. & C. 644, cited also in § 41, supra. 



